Dear Helaine: My husband is 63, and I am 60. We've been married two years.

When we met, he told me he had a solid retirement income. We initially agreed I would retire at about the same time as him, and we would travel. Instead, he retired last year at 62, when he received a $30,000 package for early retirement. I suggested he work another year, and we could retire together, but he said he didn't want to work any longer. My husband then said I needed to work till 62 because he worked till 62.

He micromanages our finances for at least an hour a day. He continually moves money from one account to another to make sure there is only what we need in our checking account. He says if we leave money in the checking account, we will spend it. He's cut back on his cellphone, cable and entertainment.

He made $100,000 a year before he retired. That's three times as much as I earn. He's now telling me to work till I'm 63 because that's when one of his pensions kicks in. Part of my salary goes into my own account, and I only use our joint account for gasoline and groceries.

I know his financial situation allows me to retire earlier than 65, and that's what we planned. I now feel resentment going to work every day while he is not working and controlling the money. -- Love and Money

Dear Love and Money: A lot of people, after they leave the workforce, get extremely concerned about their money. Little wonder. They are now dependent on savings, investments, pensions and Social Security. If they encounter a financial crisis, there is no earning their way out of it. That's scary for many, including, it seems, your husband. After all, he's not just attempting to deny you spending; he's cutting back on things he enjoys as well.

But that doesn't mean his controlling behavior is acceptable. It's not. At best, he pulled a bait and switch on you, and he has serious issues with allowing a partner to have equal say in the marital finances. At worst, he's an abusive spouse, using his greater net worth to lord it over you. Not only would you be inhuman if you didn't feel resentment in this situation, I would be concerned about your psychological well-being if you weren't frightened and furious.

My advice: I would demand the two of you go to a financial counselor jointly, and get a sense from an objective expert what you can and can't spend, how much you can dedicate to travel annually, and when you can afford to retire. If your spouse refuses to go, or continues to attempt to control your spending and otherwise act in an offensive, dictatorial way, I would suggest seeking legal advice. I hate to say it, but it's possible this relationship can't be saved.

(To ask Helaine a question, email her at askhelaine@gmail.com.)

(EDITORS: For editorial questions, please contact Sue Roush at sroush@amuniversal.com)

Dear Helaine: My girlfriend and I moved in together about six months ago, right after she took a new job with a 30 percent pay raise. We immediately sat down and agreed on a budget that would allow us to meet our bills, provide a very reasonable social life and still save a significant amount for the future. We've done a good job of sticking to it.

We're now engaged, and that's given rise to some new financial controversy. She comes from a significantly more affluent family than myself, and our attitudes about debt and money are very different. Her parents have generously given us enough money to cover the majority of our wedding expenses, but she also wants to spend the majority of our savings on a wedding, while at the same time purchasing a home with little down payment. I see this as a poor ordering of our financial priorities, and feel we could save enough for a 20 percent down payment within two or three years.

Also, she would like to buy a home in the top range of our affordability, rather than one we could buy for a lower price and improve ourselves over several years. I don't want to give the impression she's high maintenance and spoiled. She simply has a different view of what is affordable and prefers to purchase things in their finished form rather than buy basic and improve. What do you suggest? -- Hoping for Richer Rather Than Poorer.

Dear Hoping: The financial baggage from our families is with us for our entire lives. For many of us, it becomes a set point. Grow up in straitened circumstances, and you are forever convinced the financial wolf can arrive at the door at any moment. Those who grow up wealthy, on the other hand, frequently start from the opposite position -- things will always work out for the best. Money is viewed as something that will be forever replenished.

This seems to be the primary issue between you and your future wife, and it is emerging whenever a major purchase -- from a wedding to a home -- is involved. I suspect this is something you will need to come to a middle position on, something that will be hashed out over time.

In the meantime, I will point out that real estate investors often say the home to buy is the worst house on the best street, which sounds like a compromise between your two positions. But spending the majority of your savings on a wedding? I'm with you. A party -- and that's what a wedding reception is -- comes to an end within a few hours, but you'll need to live in and pay for a home you purchase for a long time to come. You'll likely need that money.

(To ask Helaine a question, email her at askhelaine@gmail.com.)

(EDITORS: For editorial questions, please contact Sue Roush at sroush@amuniversal.com)

Dear Helaine: I'm 54 and divorced. I've been with the same company since 2004, and I also receive a small military pension. After taxes, I earn $4,900 a month, including the pension. I contribute to my employer's 401(k) and meet the employer match. In addition, I also save between $900 and $1,000 a month, and now have $32,000 in savings. I have no other debt besides my mortgage.

My question? I calculate that at my present rate of saving, I would be able to pay off my mortgage by the end of 2020. That's 8 1/2 years into a 30-year fixed mortgage. It would wipe out my savings, albeit without touching my 401(k). And I do have an aversion to paying interest. I also don't want to be paying a mortgage in my 60s. Is it foolish to use my entire savings to clear my mortgage?

My job is fairly secure, and I hope to remain with the company till retirement in 10 years. Even so, there is an undeniable appeal in not having a mortgage in case I am overly optimistic about my employment security. -- A Mortgage-Free Future

Dear Mortgage-Free Future: I totally understand where you are coming from. I'm not going to say you are right or wrong; each one of us has a different comfort level for mortgage debt and the interest owed on it.

What I would suggest is that you put this goal on a longer time line than a two-year period. Why? Simple: I don't think it would be a good idea to clean out your savings so you can achieve your goal of metaphorically burning your mortgage papers.

If something goes wrong -- say, your job isn't as secure as you think, or you suffer a health crisis -- you might face a situation where you need to turn to your retirement savings. That could leave you paying penalties, along with doing significant damage to your post-work finances. That's the opposite of the security you are hoping to achieve.

Real estate is an illiquid investment, and there is no guarantee you can sell the property when you need to for the amount you would like, or that a bank will give you a home equity line. On the other hand, the amount you have set aside is a nice emergency fund. I don't think you need to add to it.

I'd suggest taking the extra $1,000 a month and dividing it between increasing your retirement savings and paying down your mortgage. If you get a raise, you can put that money toward the mortgage, too. And keep up the good savings work!

(To ask Helaine a question, email her at askhelaine@gmail.com.)

(EDITORS: For editorial questions, please contact Sue Roush at sroush@amuniversal.com)